3.3 Совершенствование развития ооо «Металлист Плюс» при открытии филиала
На основании вышеизложенного предлагаю следующий стратегический проект для усовершенствования развития компании:
1. Создание собственного WEB-сайта ООО «Металлист Плюс», где будет отражаться вся информация касающееся компании и ассортимента продукции. В качестве дополнительных услуг на сайте будет размещено следующее:
- посетитель сайта сможет заполнить анкету о приеме на работу. Для этого надо будет ответить на вопросы и отправить в виде электронной почты. Результаты анкетирования будут приведены в письменной или электронной форме.
- также посетителям сайта представляется возможность заказать товар. Клиенту будет иметь возможность выбрать ассортимент, количество интересующего его товара. Если сумма заказа будет превышать установленный лимит, то заказ доставляется бесплатно в указанное место. Например, свыше 1000 рублей.
2. Создание информационного терминала.
Данная стратегия будет направлена на привлечение покупателя за счет эффективности и скорости обслуживания в виде информационного обеспечения. Эта услуга предоставляется покупателю в виде терминала с полной матрицей ассортимента товара, что обеспечит увеличение качества и скорости обслуживания покупателей.
3. Создание дополнительной услуги.
Сущность предлагаемой услуги заключается в следующем: при расчете, покупателю не придется складывать товар самостоятельно, в этом ему поможет специальный служащий, который упакует товар. Данная услуга поднимет скорость обслуживания в два раза.
Для выполнения данного проекта потребуются финансовые вложения в размере 150 тыс. руб. Срок окупаемости стратегического проекта предложен в Приложении 21.
Из приложения 21 видно, что срок окупаемости проекта составляет 1 год. На поступление и рост денежных средств будет влиять численный поток покупателей. Чистая текущая стоимость стратегии:
NPV = 8847,43/(1+0,12)1-150 = 7884,49 тыс. руб.
Индекс прибыльности: PI = (8847,43/(1+0,12)1)/150 = 526,6 тыс. руб.
По итогам расчетов видно, что применение данной стратегии никак не отразится на финансовом положении предприятия, т.е. введение стратегии покажет только положительный результат. Индекс рентабельности больше 1 (PI > 1),таким образом, стратегию следует применять.
В тоже время относительно безболезненно можно перевести порядка 20 человек из комбината в филиал, при этом они могут проводить обучение принятых работников на местах без отрыва от производства, что потребует сравнительно более меньших расходов по оплате их труда и оплаты Ѕ оклада «ученикам». Следует отметить, что в данном случае работать весь штат может в полном объеме с первых дней открытия, а не через 2 месяца как в случае обучения с отрывом от производства и нанимать необходимо будет 36 работников. Выигрыш отражается так же в том, что треть работников будет уже иметь практический опыт в данном филиале. Таким образом затраты на обучение составят 139,5 тыс. руб. (12 чел. – курсы продавцов, 5 чел. – пользователи ПК), а экономический эффект – 143 т. руб.
Предложенные в проекте услуги, безусловно, найдут свое применение в ближайшее время. Ведь благодаря Интернету о магазине будут знать не только в городе, но и в других городах, а также областях. С помощью локальной сети можно совершать заявку у поставщиков, что, несомненно, выгодно и актуально. С помощью сайта можно прорекламировать собственную кухню производства, визуально отразить уникальные изделия, как кондитерские, так и мясные. Размещать на сайте информацию о новинках в ассортименте товара, проводимых акциях, розыгрышах и многое другое.
ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ
В своей курсовой работе я сделала некоторые выводы:
1. Выбор стратегии и её выполнение являются основными частями стратегического управления.
2. Выбор стратегии зависит от ситуации, в которой находится организация.
3. Выбор стратегии связан с состоянием ключевых факторов, к которым относятся сильные стороны отрасли и фирмы, цели фирмы, интересы высшего руководства, обязательства компании, квалификация работников, финансовые ресурсы компании, степень зависимости от внешней среды, фактор времени.
4. Стратегический менеджмент - это управление, имеющее достаточно определенную цель, стратегические ориентиры и стратегические приоритеты в разработке и выбору управленческих решений.
Сущность стратегического решения заключается в том, что оно (с позиции теории систем) – необходимый специфический нематериальный компонент системы менеджмента и присутствует в той или иной форме в процессе выполнения всех функций данной системы. Одновременно управленческое решение – функция (как функция разработки управленческого решения), в ходе выполнения которой расходуются ресурсы (в зависимости от уровня управленческого решения могут расходоваться все существующие виды ресурсов).
Влияние различных факторов, управляющих процессом принятия решения. К таким факторам можно отнести: внешнюю среду компании; личностные качества людей и ресурсообеспеченность.
Например, чем сильнее у человека выражена потребность в успехе и желания добиваться первенства, тем больше он подвержен риску. В психологии также известен эффект «позитивного сдвига риска», когда групповое принятие решений приводит к выбору более рискованных альтернатив, чем индивидуальное. Это происходит из-за распределения ответственности между членами группы лиц, принимающих решение, «размытости» ответственности каждого за последствия рискованного решения.
Последним пунктом формирования стратегии компании является прежде всего осознание его руководством невозможности сохранить и укрепить позиции компании, действующей в условиях перенасыщенного рынка, опираясь на традиционную политику. Отсюда следует переориентация методов управления развитием компании с опоры на уже достигнутые результаты, освоенные товары и используемые технологии (внутренние факторы) на изучение ограничений, накладываемых внешней рыночной средой (внешние факторы).
Особенностью стратегического менеджмента является его ориентация в будущее, и, таким образом, необходимо определить к чему стремиться, какие цели ставить. Наряду с анализом внутренней среды, компании необходима также диагностика внешнего окружения, чтобы знать возможности и угрозы развития в будущем.
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
1.ГОСТ Р 51303-99 «Торговля. Термины и определения» от 11 августа 1999 г. №242-ст. Дата введения – 1 января 2000 г.
2.Басова С.Н., Митрофанова О.Ю. Маркетинговые коммуникации: стимулирование сбыта: учеб. пособ. – Хабаровск : РИЦ ХГАЭП, 2012. – 44 с.
3.Билинкис В.Д. Реклама и стимулирование сбыта. - учебное пособие. В.Д. Билинкис, С.И. Воронин, С.А. Повеквечных- 2014
4.Браун К. Практическое пособие по стимулированию сбыта. – М: ИМИДЖ-Контакт, 2013
5.Дейян А. Троадек А. Стимулирование сбыта и реклама на месте продажи. / М.: «Прогресс». 2014. - 189 с.
6.Зундэ В.В. Концепция формирования системы интегрированных маркетинговых коммуникаций: монография / В.В. Зундэ – М.: Экон. Науки, 2014. - 180 с.
7.Кент Т. Розничная торговля / Т.Кент, О.Омар; пер. с англ. – М.: ЮНИТИ-ДАНА, 2011. – 719 с.
8.Кибанов А.Я., Баткаева И.А., Митрофанова Е.А., Ловчева М.В. Мотивация и стимулирование трудовой деятельности: Учебник. – М.: Инфра-М. – 2011. – 524 с.
9.Котлер Ф., Келлер К.Л. Маркетинг менеджмент. - 12-е изд. СПб.: Питер, 2013. - С. 570.
10.Котлер Ф. Маркетинг от А до Я: 80 концепций, которые должен знать каждый менеджер / Ф.Котлер. Спб.: Издательский дом «Нева», 2013. с.132
11.Росситер Дж., Перси Л. Реклама и продвижение товаров. - СПб.: Питер, 2013. - С. 18.
12Сидоров Д. Розничные сети. Секреты эффективности и типичные ошибки при работе с ними. – М.: Вершина, 2011. – 229 с.
13.Смит П., Бэрри К., Пулфорд А. Коммуникации стратегического маркетинга. – М., 2014
14.Тараканова О.Л. История книги. – М.: Дело, 2012, С. 375.
15.Шульц Д., Танненбаум С., Лаутерборн Р. Новая парадигма маркетинга. Интегрируемые маркетинговые коммуникации. –М.: Инфра-М, 2012. - с.21
16.Альфимова В.С. Экспресс-курс для начинающих работу с торговыми сетями // Управление продажами. – 2011. - №1 – С.50-63
17.Артемьева Ю.В. Как «подорвать» продажи конкурентов // Маркетинг в России и за рубежом. – 2013. - №2.- С.
18.Борисовский Ю., Семина Н., Соболев С. По ту сторону рекламы. Классификация услуг в области непрямой рекламы // Индустрия рекламы, 2012. - №12, июнь. – с. 200-205.
19.Ванькина И.В. Маркетинг образования / И.В.Ванькина, А.П.Егоршин, В.И.Кучеренко. М.: Университетская книга. Логос, 2011. 336 с.
20.Веллхофф А., Масон Ж.-Э. Методы мерчендайзинга // Маркетинг и маркетинговые исследования 2012 - №2 – с.62
21.Здравомыслов П.И. Комплекс маркетинга розничной сети //М и МИ – 2011 - №3, с.224-228 (с.227)
22.Мансуров Р.Е. Что делать, если упали продажи? // Управление продажами. – 2012. - №6. – С.366 – 374
23.Никулина Т.А. Понятие, признаки и классификация розничных торговых сетей // Маркетинг в России и за рубежом. – 2012. - №5. – С.115
24.Отян Ю. Позиционирование объектов в модели «стратегических часов» с относительными шкалами осей // Маркетинг и маркетинговые исследования. – 2013. – №2. – С.140-151
25.Сидченко Р. Эффективность промоакций розничных сетей // Маркетинговые коммуникации. – 2012. – №1. – С.16-28
26.Якунин Д.А. Исследование понятия и форм маркетинговых коммуникаций // Транспортное дело России. 2013. № 77. С. 150-153.
ПРИЛОЖЕНИЯ
Приложение 1
Пять основных этапов стратегического менеджмента
Приложение 2
Схема организационной структуры ООО «Металлист Плюс»
Приложение 3
|
Область установления цели |
Цель |
|
Внешняя среда |
Формирование благоприятного имиджа Обеспечение ликвидности и финансовой устойчивости предприятия |
|
Удовлетворение потребностей |
Качество оказания услуг Полное удовлетворение платежеспособного спроса потребителей |
|
Функционирование предприятия |
Формирование положительного психологического климата в организации Повышение тарифной сетки оплаты труда Обеспечение ответственности и личная заинтересованности каждого работника Снижение убытков, получение прибыли и повышение рентабельности производимой продукции |
Приложение 4
Качественная оценка состояния и развития предприятия
|
Сфера окружения |
Характеристика сфер окружения |
Оценка вектора изменения | ||
|
Текущий период |
Будущий период | |||
|
1. Производство |
Увеличение объемов продаж, расширение ассортимента |
Увеличение объемов продаж, расширение ассортимента |
+ | |
|
2. Финансы |
Увеличение прибыли, финансовой устойчивости |
Стабилизация получения прибыли, улучшение финансового состояния |
+ | |
|
3. Кадры |
Улучшение эффективности использования кадров |
Рациональная организация труда, увеличение мотивации труда, увеличение надбавок |
+ | |
|
4. Руководство |
Обеспечение стабильной работы |
Обеспечение стабильной работы |
+ | |
|
5. Ноу-хау |
Идет развитие технологий производства продукции |
Внедрение новых видов продукции |
+ | |
|
6. Маркетинг |
Не развит |
Развитие службы маркетинга |
+ | |
Приложение 5
Матрица SWOT-анализа
|
Возможности Возможность расширения производственных площадей Наращивание объемов и увеличение ассортимента продукции Возможность выхода на внешний рынок |
Сильные стороны Отсутствие текучести кадров Высокая квалификация работников Расширение производственных мощностей Качество продукции Четкое разделение труда |
|
Угрозы Угроза неплатежей Высокие налоги Угроза высоких темпов инфляции Быстро стареющие производственные мощности Угрозы несчастных случаев при работе |
Слабые стороны Невысокий уровень маркетинговых исследований Несовершенная система управления Износ большей части ОФ Большая энергоемкость и материалоемкость производства |
Приложение 6
Балльная оценка деятельности предприятия
|
Сфера окружения |
Характеристики |
Балльная шкала | ||||||||||
|
Зона слабых сторон |
Зона стабильности |
Зона сильных сторон | ||||||||||
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 | ||
|
1. Политическая |
производство |
|
|
|
|
|
о |
|
|
| ||
|
финансы |
|
|
|
о |
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
кадры |
|
|
|
|
о |
|
|
|
| |||
|
руководство |
|
|
|
|
|
о |
|
|
| |||
|
ноу-хау |
|
|
о |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
маркетинг |
|
|
о |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
2. Экономическая |
производство |
|
|
|
|
|
|
о |
|
| ||
|
финансы |
|
|
|
|
о |
|
|
|
| |||
|
кадры |
|
|
|
|
о |
|
|
|
| |||
|
руководство |
|
|
|
|
|
о |
|
|
| |||
|
ноу-хау |
|
|
о |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
маркетинг |
|
|
|
о |
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
3. Технологическая |
производство |
|
|
|
|
|
о |
|
|
| ||
|
финансы |
|
|
|
|
о |
|
|
|
| |||
|
кадры |
|
|
|
|
|
о |
|
|
| |||
|
руководство |
|
|
|
|
|
|
о |
|
| |||
|
ноу-хау |
|
|
|
о |
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
маркетинг |
|
|
|
|
о |
|
|
|
| |||
|
4. Социально-демократическая |
производство |
|
|
|
|
о |
|
|
|
| ||
|
финансы |
|
|
о |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
кадры |
|
|
|
о |
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
руководство |
|
|
|
|
о |
|
|
|
| |||
|
ноу-хау |
|
|
о |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
маркетинг |
|
|
о |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
5. Экологическая |
производство |
|
|
|
|
о |
|
|
|
| ||
|
финансы |
|
|
о |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
кадры |
|
|
|
о |
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
руководство |
|
|
|
|
о |
|
|
|
| |||
|
ноу-хау |
|
|
о |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
маркетинг |
|
|
|
о |
|
|
|
|
| |||
Приложение 7
Доли рынка фирм, работающих в Республике Татарстан
|
Фирмы-конкуренты
|
Численность, персонала, чел. |
Объем произведенной продукции в 2014 г., тыс. руб. |
Доля на рынке, в % |
|
ООО «Инреко» |
135 |
138781 |
35,6 |
|
ООО «Металлист Плюс» |
430 |
98238 |
25,2 |
|
ООО «Махагони» |
420 |
106814 |
27,4 |
|
ООО «Глобус» |
38 |
46000 |
11,8 |
|
ИТОГО |
|
389833 |
100 |
Приложение 8
Матрица «рынок-товар»
|
ТОВАР РЫНОК |
Производимые товары |
Новые товары |
|
Существующие рынки |
1. Стратегия на увеличение доли рынка и стабилизации позиций фирмы |
3. Стратегия развития продукта (диверсификация товара) |
|
Новые рынки |
2. Стратегия выхода на новые рынки (диверсификация рынка) |
4. Полная диверсификация |
Приложение 9
Расчет срока окупаемости проекта
|
шаг, месяц |
чистый денежный поток, т.р. |
сальдо накопленного денежного потока, т.р. |
|
0 |
-5530 |
-5530 |
|
09 |
387,75 |
-5142,25 |
|
10 |
387,29 |
-4754,95 |
|
11 |
444,11 |
-4310,85 |
|
12 |
929,02 |
-3381,82 |
|
1 |
480,97 |
-2900,86 |
|
2 |
513,61 |
-2387,25 |
|
3 |
583,59 |
-1803,66 |
|
4 |
546,12 |
-1257,54 |
|
5 |
546,12 |
-711,42 |
|
6 |
513,05 |
-198,37 |
|
7 |
513,27 |
314,66 |
|
8 |
513,27 |
827,95 |
Приложение 10
Определение дисконтированной стоимости чистых поступлений от реализации инвестиционного проекта
|
Год |
Чистый денежн. поток,т.р. |
Дисконтный множитель при r = 10% |
Дисконтир-ный чистый денежный поток |
Дисконтный множитель при r = 15% |
Дисконтир-ный чистый денежный поток |
|
0 |
-5530 |
1 |
-5530 |
1 |
-5530 |
|
1 |
6357,88 |
0,909 |
5779,31 |
0,869 |
5525 |
Приложение 11
Анализ возрастной структуры автопарка
|
Возраст автотранспорта |
Доля |
|
<5 лет |
9% |
|
5-10 лет |
17% |
|
10-15 лет |
42% |
|
> 15 лет |
32% |
|
Итого |
100% |
Приложение 12
Структура автопарка по возрасту
Приложение 13
Расчет инвестиционных затрат
|
Наименование затрат |
Volvo |
Scania |
Mercedes |
|
Чистая стоимость одного автомобиля (руб.) |
4025000 |
3100000 |
3700000 |
|
Доставка (перевозка) 1 автомобиля (руб.) |
1850 |
1500 |
1450 |
|
Обучение техперсонала предприятия (руб.) |
8000 |
8000 |
8000 |
|
Доход от продажи отработавших свой срок автомобилей в утиль, (руб.) |
570000 |
430000 |
350000 |
|
Инвестиционные затраты по проекту (руб.) |
100109250 |
77115500 |
92194250 |
Приложение 14
Сравнение источников финансирования проекта
|
Показатели |
Банки | ||
|
Сбербанк |
Внешэкономбанк |
Альфа-Банк | |
|
Срок кредита |
до 18 мес. |
от 1 года для инвестиционных кредитов |
до 180 дней с последующей пролонгацией |
|
Минимальная сумма |
Нет ограничения |
$100 000 |
$100 000 |
|
Годовая процентная ставка |
В зависимости от условий кредита, 28-30% |
от 25-28% годовых и плавающая ставка |
от 23%, постоянная ставка |
Приложение 15
Выбор оптимальной структуры капитала при реализации проекта
|
Показатель |
Варианты структуры капитала | |||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 | |
|
Доля собственного капитала, % |
100 |
80 |
60 |
40 |
20 |
0 |
|
Доля заёмного капитала, % |
0 |
20 |
40 |
60 |
80 |
100 |
|
Цена собственного капитала, % |
38,3 |
38,3 |
38,3 |
38,3 |
38,3 |
0 |
|
Цена заёмного капитала, % |
0 |
23 |
23 |
23 |
23 |
23 |
|
Взвешенная цена капитала, % |
38,3 |
35,24 |
32,18 |
29,12 |
26,06 |
16 |
Приложение 16
Структура источников каждого из проектов
|
Источники финансирования |
Volvo |
Scania |
Mercedes |
|
Собственные средства руб. |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Заемные средства руб. |
100109250 |
77115500 |
92194250 |
|
Доля заемных средств % |
100 |
100 |
100 |
Приложение 17
Расчет переменных затрат по проектам
|
Показатели |
Volvo |
Scania |
Mercedes |
|
Расход топлива на 100 км (литр) |
38,6 |
49,4 |
41,5 |
|
Стоимость топлива (руб.) (дизельное) |
18,70 |
18,70 |
18,70 |
|
Расходы на топливо за 1 км пробега (руб)= Расход топлива на рейс (л/рейс) * стоимость топлива (руб/литр) |
721,82 |
923,78 |
776,05 |
|
Заработная плата водителя/ 1000км |
200 |
200 |
200 |
|
Оплата автомехаников/ 1000 км |
150 |
150 |
150 |
|
стоимость обслуживания автомобиля (двигатели, масло, тосол и т.д.). / 1000 км |
350 |
420 |
380 |
|
Итого затрат на 100 км |
735 |
770 |
730 |
|
Планируемый пробег в год (сотен км) |
5500 |
5200 |
5400 |
|
Итого переменных затрат |
4042500 |
4004000 |
3942000 |
Приложение 18
Состав постоянных затрат по проектам
|
Показатели |
Volvo |
Scania |
Mercedes |
|
Амортизация оборудования (стоимость / 5 лет) |
20125000 |
15500000 |
18500000 |
|
Расчеты с кредиторами (стоимость процентных платежей по кредиту) |
29138000 |
22436260 |
26806960 |
|
Оплата лицензий на перевозку |
30000 |
30000 |
30000 |
|
Др. постоянные издержки |
58500 |
58500 |
58500 |
|
Итого постоянных затрат |
49351500 |
38024760 |
45395460 |
|
Итого общих затрат (переменные затр. + постоянные затр.) |
53394000 |
42028760 |
49337460 |
Приложение 19
Расчет выручки по каждому из проектов
|
Показатель |
Volvo |
Scania |
Mercedes |
|
Годовой пробег (сотен км) |
5500 |
5200 |
5400 |
|
Средняя оплата рейса, руб. |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
|
Количество автомобилей |
25 |
25 |
25 |
|
ВП, руб. |
137500000 |
130000000 |
135000000 |
Приложение 20
Расчет прибыли по проектам
|
Показатели |
Volvo |
Scania |
Mercedes |
|
ВП, руб. |
137500000 |
130000000 |
135000000 |
|
Общие затраты в год, руб. |
53394000 |
42028760 |
49337460 |
|
Прибыль до налогообложения (ВП – Об.Затр.) |
84106000 |
87971240 |
85662540 |
|
Налог на прибыль (20%) |
16821200 |
17594248 |
17132508 |
|
Чистая прибыль (прибыль до н/о - налог на прибыль) |
67284800 |
70376992 |
68530032 |
Приложение 21
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
group conflict is interpersonal, that is, those that arise between people (primarily in family and friendships). I guess they are more helpful than harmful. Of course, to participate in this confrontation are going great emotional cost, and sometimes the result is a disconnection. More often, however, interpersonal conflict is good, because it helps people get to know each other, promotes understanding, gives an indication on the need to work to increase the involvement of people. And, if a positive resolution, as a rule, promotes cohesion. Interpersonal conflicts in the business and scientific areas, I think, not less useful. Even Socrates argued: "In a dispute born truth." And I agree with him, confirming that often conflict is the engine of progress. It can give a new turn in business development, lead to discoveries and help to choose the most rational decision. But it usually turns out to be possible only with a constructive resolution of the dispute. Because the human factor is sometimes such conflicts can still go into the private sphere and not lead to anything good. The intergroup conflicts, which include, for example, the confrontation between the administration and employees of any enterprise, political conflicts, is more difficult, and therefore probably less useful. On the one hand, they, too, can be reduced to interpersonal confrontation few ideologues or leaders. On the other hand, the leaders always have followers, and this fact speaks about the inclusion of significant mass in the conflict. The highest degree of tension this struggle reaches when turning into a confrontation between countries and peoples. Here, in my opinion, use even less. Especially if the collision begins to take armed form. But most often is: rarely in such situations are able to come to a rational solution. Possible conflict between the individual and the group. It can be triggered by the same person, violate the General rules, or group, not the host personality. But here already, I think each situation should be considered separately and in more detail.
Срок окупаемости инвестиционного проекта
|
шаг, месяц |
чистый денежный поток, т.р. |
сальдо накопленного денежного потока, т.р. |
|
0 |
-150 |
-150 |
|
11 |
3,605 |
-146,4 |
|
12 |
4,500 |
-141,9 |
|
1 |
8,900 |
-133,0 |
|
2 |
14,950 |
-118,05 |
|
3 |
18,360 |
-99,69 |
|
4 |
17,580 |
-82,11 |
|
5 |
15,580 |
-66,31 |
|
6 |
12,690 |
-53,62 |
|
7 |
15,390 |
-38,23 |
|
8 |
14,596 |
-23,694 |
|
9 |
11,263 |
-12,371 |
|
10 |
16,358 |
10,155 |